That's not what minimize means at all, hence my straw man argument. Minimize means reducing the amount as much as possible while still satisfying other parameters of your equation. Zero makes the whole operation nonviable as we agree due to diminishing returns, so it doesn't satisfy that definition.
The dichotomy of optimizing user frustration and minimizing user frustration is basically a question of what parameter gets what valence in the whole objective function. Maximizing profit at the expense of user frustration is optimizing user frustration, meaning having the perfect amount of user frustration in which their leaving the platform and the cost of reducing the frustration is on balance. Minimizing user frustration means doing this the other way around and having a product that, as Google claims, serves "the user first". If you understood that to be zero, I hope it is clear now. At any rate my point doesn't hinge on what the minimal point is. It is clear that any goal other than optimizing user frustration will be an improvement to current situation as far as what users get out of the transaction, and it is unlikely to be adopted.
> Minimize means reducing the amount as much as possible while still satisfying other parameters of your equation.
> basically a question of what parameter gets what valence in the whole objective function
You're splitting extremely fine hairs there, your difference between minimize and optimize seems to be not much more than how much you like a term "satisfying other parameters of your equation".
>Minimize means reducing the amount as much as possible while still satisfying other parameters of your equation.
You have to stop after "as much as possible". Adding a "while still" makes it optimization, your value judgment doesn't get to determine what does and does not fit inside the "while still" of minimize.
Once somebody calls me out for a logical fallacy based on their own difficult to understand definitions of seemingly common words... if that can't be resolved there really isn't a point in continuing, it's not like we could really communicate anything much less make arguments if we can't agree what minimize means.
> You have to stop after "as much as possible". Adding a "while still" makes it optimization, your value judgment doesn't get to determine what does and does not fit inside the "while still" of minimize.
I'll try to simplify it. Imagine a function with dependent and independent variables. Choosing an independent variable so that the dependent variable is the minimum is minimizing. Imagine the plotting of the equation, we are still trying to be on the curve. That's what "as much as possible" means. You are saying minimizing has to be when that dependent variable is zero. That is only possible if the equation crosses the x axis. For our case, it doesn't because diminishing returns make that impossible. Hence my calling strawman.
> You're splitting extremely fine hairs there
The thing I've been trying to separate is not optimization and minimization because minimization is a particular type of optimization. I'm trying to distinguish what particular variable is given valence while solving the whole system of equations. Because in a case where two of those variables are correlated (user frustration & revenue), picking one over the other chooses different optima for both (optimizing for user frustration vs optimizing for revenue yields different optimum values for their correlated counter-parts; for revenue and user frustration respectively). I want to emphasize, these variables are not independent with respect to each other. So there is no simple "revenue is max and frustration is min" solution for which we could say "youtube should just optimize the whole thing". There is picking to be made and max revenue is picked over min frustration, always.
Picking up on me using words "optimize" vs "minimize" for two different variables appears to me as further strawmanning. I don't ascribe malintent, but what we have been discussing has been irrelevant to the conclusion of the original post from the beginning.
That's not what minimize means at all, hence my straw man argument. Minimize means reducing the amount as much as possible while still satisfying other parameters of your equation. Zero makes the whole operation nonviable as we agree due to diminishing returns, so it doesn't satisfy that definition.
The dichotomy of optimizing user frustration and minimizing user frustration is basically a question of what parameter gets what valence in the whole objective function. Maximizing profit at the expense of user frustration is optimizing user frustration, meaning having the perfect amount of user frustration in which their leaving the platform and the cost of reducing the frustration is on balance. Minimizing user frustration means doing this the other way around and having a product that, as Google claims, serves "the user first". If you understood that to be zero, I hope it is clear now. At any rate my point doesn't hinge on what the minimal point is. It is clear that any goal other than optimizing user frustration will be an improvement to current situation as far as what users get out of the transaction, and it is unlikely to be adopted.